REETA DEVI,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1608/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and noted that the ex-parte proceedings by the CIT(A)/NFAC might be due to communication gaps with the taxpayer given the new faceless hearing system. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arose against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, which was proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. The assessee also had a delay of 230 days in filing the lower appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte order is sustainable when there might be communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, and whether the delay in filing the lower appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Reeta Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 56, Sector-84, Kheri Ward-2(1), Kalan, B.O. Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. COQPD3122N Assessee by: None Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074197400(1) dated 07.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It is noticed during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the assessee’s 230 days delay in filing of the lower appeal wherein she had duly made out a case of circumstances beyond control which is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Reeta Devi 4. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. Nor do I find any substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act requiring the CIT(A)/NFAC to first frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon.

5.

Ms. Indu Bala Saini vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6.

I have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stand and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel involving the newly introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out.

7.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →